What do you think of the 6.5 WBY RPM ?

[FURMAN]

As far As cartridge design goes I think Hornaday is the only one that understands we don't want to have our bullets shoved halfway down in the case like we used to do 60 or 70 years ago. Hornady is the only one that is designing throats the way we would if we were building custom rifles

 

[just country]

morning, to long? next. creedmore x 50cal.
wow rabbit caliber. justme gbot tum

 

[Coyote_Hunter]

As far As cartridge design goes I think Hornaday is the only one that understands we don't want to have our bullets shoved halfway down in the case like we used to do 60 or 70 years ago. Hornady is the only one that is designing throats the way we would if we were building custom rifles

Agreed about Hornady. Hornady even states as much. One reason I'm interested in the 6.5 PRC is that it mimics my 6.5-06AI ballistically (just a little short on MV) and in the long action i'm thinking of rebarreling, I can seat any bullet without intrusion of the full diameter body reducing powder space.

 

[Greyfox]

The 257 and 277 are never going to compete side by side with 6.5 or 7mm because the high bc bullet selection sucks and always will because most people understand the 6.5 and 7 are better. I personally can not understand why people will try to argue with this. If bc does not matter to you than I would assume you are not shooting long distance in which case the cartridge or caliber you shoot makes absolutely zero difference. While I can absolutely appreciate the desire to play with weird stuff my statement has been true for at least the last 10-15 years during the explosion of higher bc bullets.

To the OP, I am not sure we needed another 6.5 RPM thread.

I'm not so sure we needed another 6.5 cartridge.....
Having been an avid 6.5 affectionato for many years Ive been quite interested in the recent introduction of the Weatherby RPM, and well worth thinking about given its interesting positioning by Weatherby in the now flooded field of 6.5 cartridges. At first reaction, much like other recent higher capacity offerings, I tend to fall in the camp that the high capacity cases lend inefficiency and diminishing returns, at least for medium game hunting to 1000, or perhaps even 1200 yard range, now feasible using the "sweet spot" capacity of the 6.5x284/6.5PRC cartridges with the newer heavy/highBC bullets and performance propellants. I spent my pre-6.5 years shooting the 270W and 270WSM, while they got the job done in the mid-range, with the lack of projectile selection(which persists to this day), I do agree the .270's have taken a back seat to the 6.5's. If It were desired, as Rfurman24 suggests, I would personally move upwards in caliber to the 280AI or 7mmMag.

 

[John Polk]

Hmmmm…

My daughter's .270 Win pushes a 150g ABLR (BC .591) to 2912fps with a 22" barrel and a less-than-max powder charge. (No pressure signs and good case life.)

Using 7000ft altitude because that's where we hunt, a 6.5CM with a 147ELD-X (BC .697) @ 2800fps (which will probably require a 24" barrel) still falls short of Daughter's .270 at 1000 yards if retained energy is the measure. The difference isn't great (1127fpe for the .270 vs 1116fpe for the 6.5CM).

At the muzzle, the .270 wins handily with 2825 fpe vs 2560 fpe. In other words, the .280 has as much energy at 115 yards as the 6.5CM has at the muzzle. My daughter practices out to 600 yards but her comfort range for game is 400 yards. At that range the .270 wins by about 187fpe. More importantly to us, it does it with a bonded hunting bullet rather than a thin-skinned target bullet.

Now, is the high BC bullet selection better for the 6.5CM? Yes. Is the difference in retained velocity and energy and drop and drift terribly important to us? No, but for her purposes (elk) the .270 Win and a hunting bullet is the better choice. Frankly, I'd rather see her shoot an elk at 600 with a .270/129gLRX than a 6.5CM/147ELD-M, even though the LRX will be about 90fpe short of the 6.5CM/147ELD-M.

A better comparison for our purposes would be apples-to-apples in both bullet construction and barrel length. Reducing the 6.5CM book velocities by 50fps for a 22" vs 24" barrel, the .270/150ABLR @ 2912fps beats a 6.5/140ABLR by 253fpe @ 600 yards (1665fpe vs 1430fpe.

We also use a lot of Barnes TTSX and LRX for hunting. Assuming and adjusting for 22" barrels again (-50fps from 24" data), a .270/129LRX @ 3150fps has 2261fps/1464fpe at 600 yards compared to 1941fps/1063fpe for a 6.5cm/127g LRX @ 2750fps. The .270/129g LRX also has 20" less drop (46.0" vs 66.6") and 3.7" less drift (18.2" vs 21.9")at 600.

High BC values don't mean a lot to us. My longest shot on game was about 500 yards (antelope) using a 110g AB with a BC of .418. Second longest was 487 yards (elk) using a 225g AB with a BC of .550. I've taken more elk, at ranges out to 411 yards, with a Speer 160g Grand Slam, BC .389, than with any other bullet.

It took me 20+ years and a bunch of elk before I recovered one of the Grand Slams, as they kept exiting. I've been using tipped X bullets (MRX, TTSX and LRX) since 2006 and have yet to recover one even though I've put two lengthwise through mule deer.

Feel free to choose your hunting bullets based on BC values. I made that mistake when I first started big game hunting in 1982. My first elk showed me the folly of doing that, which is why I switched to the Grand Slams. Now we use higher BC bullets but construction is still the first consideration.

 

[JC in Calif]

I had a 6.5 stw the barrels last right at 300 rounds never again

Yikes. What make was the barrel? Load?

 

[highdrum]

Yikes. What make was the barrel? Load?

the 6.5 stw is basically a belted 26 nosler, so barrel life should been north of 600, unless he took it to a prairie dog town, then I can see the 300 round mark.

 

[25WSM]

Be nice if Norma could make their brass harder in the head area. I only get 8 firings on my 300wsm and it's not a hot load at all. I know how many shots are on them because I can count the ejector marks. Cheap Winchester brass last twice as long in the 300 wsm. So if the rpm has the soft brass that will stink. Hopefully adg or Peterson will make a basic version of a long 284 case. Adg brass in 6.5 Saum last twice as long as converted 7 saum Norma. Come on Norma make some brass that will last. Even if you just toughen up the hotrod weatherby brass.
Shep

 

[Creedmoor shooter]

Reading through this thread makes me shake my head. People just dont understand some of this stuff. I for one am excited for the rpm. As long as the brass isnt retardely expensive or junk, I'll be building one throated for the 156 eol.

 

[IanCo]

Reading through this thread makes me shake my head. People just dont understand some of this stuff. I for one am excited for the rpm. As long as the brass isnt retardely expensive or junk, I'll be building one throated for the 156 eol.

Yup, being able to move a really high BC bullet over 3000fps out of any caliber is a good thing.

 

[Coyote_Hunter]

Reading through this thread makes me shake my head. People just dont understand some of this stuff. I for one am excited for the rpm. As long as the brass isnt retardely expensive or junk, I'll be building one throated for the 156 eol.

\
I get it. The 6.5RPM just doesn't solve any problems for me. Its raison d'etre, as I and others have stated before, including Weatherby, is so Weatherby can offer it in a sub 5-pound rifle.

 

[Bigeclipse]

Yes the bullet selection in .277 is limited but they made them because they are wanted! The more they are used more will become available. The .270 Win. was the long range cartridge when introduced in 1925 and still is even with "standard" bullets. Yes higher BC helps, but that is no reason to down the caliber. If the manufactures would spend more time on bullets for all the fine caliber/cartridges we have and stop flooding the market with cartridges that duplicate each other we would be better off.

They make more money on cartridges than they do in bullet components so they will never do what you suggest...just saying.

 

[John Polk]

In the mid-fifties, Winchester introduced the 264. Win. Mag. Which was greeted with mixed reviews and failed to develop a following in the shooting community as the .270 Win. and its "daddy" the 30-06 had. Suddenly with boosted help of a heavy advertising budget the 6.5 Creedmore was toted as a long-range hunting cartridge. I have no doubt it is a fine target cartridge, however, when it is compared to other cartridges balancing the variables to include comparable bullet weights with similar ballistic coefficients a very different picture emerges. Most people don't know and could care less about extremely high ballistic coefficients. They want flat shooting, lite recoiling rifles that will accomplish a specific task such as kill a deer. Whichever cartridges fulfill that need will succeed.

 

[25WSM]

I switched from 257 to 6.5 because of the bullet selection. Bibb makes a 110 with a 520 bc that shoots great out of a 10 twist.i don't know why we can't have a 257 with a high bc that doesn't require a 7 twist. And all the fans of the 270 are dissed too. 6.5 and 7mm get all the great bullets. 6mm is looking real good now too. Until the gaps are filled the 6.5 and 7mm and 30 are going to be hard to beat.
Shep
John just give up on your 6.5 creed issue. Does it really matter how you make the 1200 ft pounds to kill with. And no not everybody wants a real flat shooting gun anymore. In the 80s and 90s I shot 257 wby because it shot flat and I couldn't carry a 3 ft wide military surplus Rangefinder in the field. Now rangefinders are dime a dozen and are reliable. So trajectory isn't really an issue anymore. But wind drift is because you still have to guess. So a heavy high bc bullet gives you much less wind drift than a fast light bullet. Less chance for error. The advances in bullets and rangefinders has dramatically changed long range hunting.
Shep